| 30 May 2025 |
 jrick | for the vast majority of dependencies, yes | 18:13:22 |
| jrick | as soon as you start using cgo, those need to be put in the nix inputs | 18:13:59 |
| jrick | as the go tooling doesn't know how/where to get those from | 18:14:12 |
 @s_r:matrix.org | ok, thanks | 18:17:24 |
| @s_r:matrix.org | Feels a bit strange that I'll be using different files in the shell than to build the final derivation thought. What's the reason not to feed the dependencies to go as part of the build shell (e.g. by modifying GOPATH the same way the go builder does)? | 18:19:39 |
| jrick | go already has its own (very good) dependency tooling | 18:22:17 |
| jrick | buildGoModule is built to work with that | 18:22:36 |
 K900 | In reply to @s_r:matrix.org
Feels a bit strange that I'll be using different files in the shell than to build the final derivation thought. What's the reason not to feed the dependencies to go as part of the build shell (e.g. by modifying GOPATH the same way the go builder does)? Go will also explode horribly if you give it a version of an input that is even slightly off | 18:22:52 |
| jrick | practically every go project in existence uses go modules | 18:23:06 |
| K900 | So the whole point of a central package repository is kind of ruined by that | 18:23:23 |
| jrick | and when you create a nix port for some software, you want it to use those same ones | 18:23:25 |
| @s_r:matrix.org | That is not incompatible with providing them as nix dependencies | 18:23:32 |
| @s_r:matrix.org | that's how other languages with their own package modules work (haskell, elisp, python, ...) | 18:23:56 |
